A primer on state teachers' pay, take 2

Published: Monday, June 16, 2014 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, June 13, 2014 at 4:06 p.m.

I’ve been writing this column for a while now, and I’m having fun with it. But occasionally it can be frustrating.

A few months ago, I submitted my column a week ahead of time, as usual. However, two days before it was to be printed, the editor sent me a note — oops, events have occurred that make your column outdated, so we have to pull it.

So I spent the weekend updating the column, and it ran a couple of days later than its usual publication date.

And now it has happened again. I submitted my column discussing the state Senate’s budget proposal covering teachers’ pay. But dang it, after I turned in the column, the House put out its budget, completely different from the Senate’s. That, of course, immediately outdated my column.

So now we re-write.

In a previous life (before I retired), I worked as a project manager on big communications systems. The job was planning and running projects: determine requirements, engineer a solution, work the budget, get the equipment, develop the schedule, etc.

Over many years of doing this job, I learned two very important lessons. The first is, don’t lose sight of the end goal. And second, never count on Plan A working perfectly. You should always have a Plan B on hand.

So with this embedded in my DNA, I’ve been thinking that I (almost) have to admire the Republican-dominated Senate for its cynical application of these principles in its budget proposal concerning teachers’ pay.

One of the Senate’s goals has been very clear: Get rid of tenure, with the rationale that it’s too hard to fire bad teachers. It tried last year, with the General Assembly voting to eliminate tenure by fiat — just pass a law that takes tenure away. This law, however, ran into problems and has faced multiple court challenges.

So this year, our intrepid Senate came up with a truly Machiavellian Plan B. Offer a pay increase so large — about 11 percent — that it overshadows any strings attached. And be assured, there is one very crucial string: To get the raise, teachers must give up tenure.

The size of the raise is breathtaking. Other than corporate CEOs maybe, when have you ever heard of anyone getting an 11 percent raise? For teachers who basically haven’t had a raise in eight years, the temptation will be great. I’m guessing most would take the money — and who can blame them? In return, however, they relinquish their entire package of job protections.

Here is where you see the crass, sly thinking behind this Hobson’s choice. In the future, if teachers complain about the lack of tenure or raise the issue of abuse in teacher terminations, the legislature can shrug its collective shoulders and say, “Hey, not our problem. They chose this.”

And how to pay for it? Cut other parts of the education budget: $233 million by cutting 7,400 teacher’s assistants, $3 million from the school nurse program, $3.5 million from the school bus replacement program, $23 million by not increasing the textbook allowance — and on and on.

Additionally, the Senate proposed major withdrawals from a couple of state “rainy day” funds and a huge cut at the Department of Justice.

Clearly, this is not a sustainable path.

The new House proposal is totally different. It offers a 5 percent raise and retains tenure. Other elements of the education budget are largely left in tact. On the surface, this sounds like a better (but not great) deal for teachers (keeping tenure) and students (other elements of the education budget stay — but no growth, either).

But that same pesky detail arises — paying for it.

The House plan relies on a 23 percent growth in the state lottery. You remember, that lottery the Republicans fought against for two decades? And a 23 percent growth in gambling? How obtainable or sustainable is that?

But that seems preferable to Republicans rather than looking to other sources of revenue income — like maybe asking the wealthiest among us to pitch in a little more. Cutting taxes for the very rich was another of last year’s goals — mission accomplished.

So here we sit with two very different proposals. The next step is going into conference to come up with a compromise the Republicans from both chambers can agree on (with their huge majorities in both houses, the Republicans can pretty much ignore the Democrats).

We don’t yet know what sort of final deal will result. How big a raise? How to fund it? Tenure or not? Much hard work is ahead.

Remember earlier that I mentioned keeping the end goal in sight? The Senate’s goal all along has been getting rid of tenure. But I think it’s about more than just getting rid of bad teachers.

The Senate wants to further undercut the teachers’ already weak position in order to pave the way for future incursions into the educational structure. Let’s say next year the General Assembly mandated teaching specific topics — a protesting teacher could more easily be fired. How about letting experienced teachers go in favor of newer, lower-paid ones?

It didn’t have to be this way. If not for the massive tax cuts last year, the needed funds might have been there.

If there are issues with the current tenure system, why not take a stab at fixing it instead of killing it as the first and only choice? But fixing tenure wasn’t a goal, was it? And the big tax cuts were.

<p>I've been writing this column for a while now, and I'm having fun with it. But occasionally it can be frustrating.</p><p>A few months ago, I submitted my column a week ahead of time, as usual. However, two days before it was to be printed, the editor sent me a note — oops, events have occurred that make your column outdated, so we have to pull it.</p><p>So I spent the weekend updating the column, and it ran a couple of days later than its usual publication date.</p><p>And now it has happened again. I submitted my column discussing the state Senate's budget proposal covering teachers' pay. But dang it, after I turned in the column, the House put out its budget, completely different from the Senate's. That, of course, immediately outdated my column.</p><p>So now we re-write.</p><p>In a previous life (before I retired), I worked as a project manager on big communications systems. The job was planning and running projects: determine requirements, engineer a solution, work the budget, get the equipment, develop the schedule, etc.</p><p>Over many years of doing this job, I learned two very important lessons. The first is, don't lose sight of the end goal. And second, never count on Plan A working perfectly. You should always have a Plan B on hand.</p><p>So with this embedded in my DNA, I've been thinking that I (almost) have to admire the Republican-dominated Senate for its cynical application of these principles in its budget proposal concerning teachers' pay.</p><p>One of the Senate's goals has been very clear: Get rid of tenure, with the rationale that it's too hard to fire bad teachers. It tried last year, with the General Assembly voting to eliminate tenure by fiat — just pass a law that takes tenure away. This law, however, ran into problems and has faced multiple court challenges.</p><p>So this year, our intrepid Senate came up with a truly Machiavellian Plan B. Offer a pay increase so large — about 11 percent — that it overshadows any strings attached. And be assured, there is one very crucial string: To get the raise, teachers must give up tenure.</p><p>The size of the raise is breathtaking. Other than corporate CEOs maybe, when have you ever heard of anyone getting an 11 percent raise? For teachers who basically haven't had a raise in eight years, the temptation will be great. I'm guessing most would take the money — and who can blame them? In return, however, they relinquish their entire package of job protections.</p><p>Here is where you see the crass, sly thinking behind this Hobson's choice. In the future, if teachers complain about the lack of tenure or raise the issue of abuse in teacher terminations, the legislature can shrug its collective shoulders and say, “Hey, not our problem. They chose this.”</p><p>And how to pay for it? Cut other parts of the education budget: $233 million by cutting 7,400 teacher's assistants, $3 million from the school nurse program, $3.5 million from the school bus replacement program, $23 million by not increasing the textbook allowance — and on and on.</p><p>Additionally, the Senate proposed major withdrawals from a couple of state “rainy day” funds and a huge cut at the Department of Justice.</p><p>Clearly, this is not a sustainable path.</p><p>The new House proposal is totally different. It offers a 5 percent raise and retains tenure. Other elements of the education budget are largely left in tact. On the surface, this sounds like a better (but not great) deal for teachers (keeping tenure) and students (other elements of the education budget stay — but no growth, either).</p><p>But that same pesky detail arises — paying for it.</p><p>The House plan relies on a 23 percent growth in the state lottery. You remember, that lottery the Republicans fought against for two decades? And a 23 percent growth in gambling? How obtainable or sustainable is that?</p><p>But that seems preferable to Republicans rather than looking to other sources of revenue income — like maybe asking the wealthiest among us to pitch in a little more. Cutting taxes for the very rich was another of last year's goals — mission accomplished.</p><p>So here we sit with two very different proposals. The next step is going into conference to come up with a compromise the Republicans from both chambers can agree on (with their huge majorities in both houses, the Republicans can pretty much ignore the Democrats).</p><p>We don't yet know what sort of final deal will result. How big a raise? How to fund it? Tenure or not? Much hard work is ahead.</p><p>Remember earlier that I mentioned keeping the end goal in sight? The Senate's goal all along has been getting rid of tenure. But I think it's about more than just getting rid of bad teachers.</p><p>The Senate wants to further undercut the teachers' already weak position in order to pave the way for future incursions into the educational structure. Let's say next year the General Assembly mandated teaching specific topics — a protesting teacher could more easily be fired. How about letting experienced teachers go in favor of newer, lower-paid ones?</p><p>It didn't have to be this way. If not for the massive tax cuts last year, the needed funds might have been there.</p><p>If there are issues with the current tenure system, why not take a stab at fixing it instead of killing it as the first and only choice? But fixing tenure wasn't a goal, was it? And the big tax cuts were.</p>